Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Should Not Give a Pass to Tar Sands Oil
President Obama heads to Canada today on his first diplomatic trip abroad. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated he wants to use the trip as an opportunity to talk to President Obama about Alberta's tar sands oil- the dirtiest oil on Earth.
The Canadian press has reported that the country will seek a U.S.-Canada climate agreement that shelters tar sands oil from regulation. During his visit, Obama will likely face immense pressure to offer special treatment for this dirty, destructive oil.
Tar sands oil is the fastest growing source of global warming emissions in Canada. Its production creates three times the amount of greenhouse gases as conventional oil. In Alberta, tar sands drilling, pipelines, roads and surface mining have obliterated a large swath of what was once strikingly beautiful boreal forest. Its toxic tailing ponds span nearly 20 square miles of forest and bogs.
Last year, a flock of 500 ducks was found dead in one of the nasty ponds. Worse, tar sands have been linked to high rates of rare cancers in nearby indigenous communities. But the destruction doesn't stop at the border.
In the United States, a vast web of pipelines and refineries designed to transport the oil from Canada threatens communities throughout the Midwest with air pollution, water degradation and unchecked industrial development.
While energy security for both Canadians and Americans is essential, we also need green jobs, healthy communities and swift and decisive action on climate change. The integrity of any kind of North American climate agreement would be compromised should it somehow give a free pass to the production of high carbon oil from the tar sands.
Emissions cuts in any agreement will need to be deep for all types of dirty fuels. Placing an extra burden on some sectors in order to allow emissions from tar sands oil to grow, or even to stay constant, is not an acceptable solution. Instead, our countries must work together toward greater conservation, improved energy efficiency measures and green job development.
The most exciting conversation Obama and Harper can have is one about how energy trade between our two countries can shift to renewable energy and technologies for energy efficiency. Both the United States and Canada have a tremendous supply of clean, renewable energy sources - sources that won't contribute to global warming, harm public health or destroy the environment. An investment in clean energy would boost our economies and create much-needed lasting, sustainable jobs in both of our countries.
The good news is that Obama clearly understands the benefits of a low-carbon economy. He's made it a key element of his economic recovery plan. The president has already proven he is serious about clean energy. Alberta tar sands oil, the dirtiest oil on Earth, clearly has no place in his vision.

2 Comments so far
Show AllYesterday crude oil was selling for $34.75 a barrel, down from $140.00 a barrel peak last summer. It’s my understanding that the corporate “on the books” cost of production of oil from tar sands is above $50.00 a barrel with some estimates as high as $70.00 a barrel. http://tinyurl.com/ab6f3v
With crude prices this low the economic incentive for “green” energy projects becomes very hard to justify politically.
America’s overly subsidized ethanol industry is in dire straits, VeraSun, the second largest U.S. producer of ethanol from corn filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection October 27, 2008. Ethanol experts doubt that even after reorganization VeraSun can be made profitable. The bursting of the commodities bubble, largely under reported, is impacting the economy as much as the collapse of the financial sector. Sectors like agriculture, mining, petroleum production* and steel are all being impacted negatively.
With the downward spiral of commodity prices promoting green energy will become much harder as producing energy from conventional sources falls in cost.
*With oil at $34.75 and gas at $2.00 a gallon expect to see Big Oil post yet another set of record/near record earnings next quarter.
"Yesterday crude oil was selling for $34.75 a barrel"
That's for West Texas Intermediate. Lately West Texas Intermediate is trading for considerably less than for other varieties that are more typically used to create gasoline used in the US.
"With oil at $34.75 and gas at $2.00 a gallon expect to see Big Oil post yet another set of record earnings next quarter."
"Big Oil" is a pretty nebulous term of limited use. Refining "crude oil" into gasoline is only one function of "Big Oil". The ability for a refining operation to make a profit is based on crack spread:
http://www.nymex.com/media/crackspread.pdf
Thus, if there is in fact a big difference between the price of "crude oil" and the wholesale price of gasoline, there can be greater profit. But you have to look at the correct variety of "crude oil".
OTOH, "Big Oil" also produces "crude oil" from oil feilds, with more or less steady expenses on a per barrel basis. Thus, with lower prices for that commodity, it becomes harder to make profit on that function.
Obviously, a given price level on crude is a two edged sword for "Big Oil".